Taxation Episode and the Date of Mark: Reference to Fiscus Judaicus? Thread:

Mark 12:13-17 presents an event: the Jewish opponents of Jesus question him about whether taxes (Gr. κῆνσον from Lat. census) should be paid to Caesar or not. Jesus instructs them to bring a denarius; since it bears Caesar’s insignia, it is due to him.

Christopher Zeichmann, in his 2017 paper, proposed that the Taxation Episode is evidence for the Gospel being written post-70s. His argument is pretty straightforward: such a tax — a) levied by census, b) paid in coins, c) to Caesar — didn't exist before the Fiscus Judaicus.

It should be observed, before moving on, that Zeichmann himself admits his argument is rendered moot if Mark was written somewhere else other than the southern Levant: say, Rome (the traditionally presumed provenance) or Alexandria. Nevertheless, let’s grant this assumption.

Was the tax — based on Quirinius’s Census of 6 CE — paid in goods or in money? Zeichmann argues that only the former existed in pre-War Judea, citing Josephus, and claims that taxes were never consistently collected in money before Vespasian’s reign:

However, this does not seem to be the case. Josephus’s mentions of taxes paid in goods and produce does not negate the existence of a tributum capitalis, paid in money. This is confirmed by Agrippa II’s speech in 66 CE, preserved by Josephus:

Though Zeichmann tries to explain Agrippa’s mention of this tax paid in χρήματα (money) as an emergency collection, this overlooks the precise details: Judeans are described by their own ruler to have paid tax “to Caesar” annually in χρημάτων like the Egyptians do.

There are more such references in Josephus that can be taken to refer to a tributum capitalis: for example, the “annual taxes [φόρους] which [Herod] laid upon every one of [the Judeans]” (Antiquities 17:11:2).

Appian (ca. 165 CE) records that Mark Antony set up Herod as king, on the condition that he would pay a prescribed tribute. Pliny the Elder (ca. 75 CE) seems to corroborate this account when he observes that Romans always imposed upon conquered nations a tribute in silver.

Zeichmann’s second major point is that since denarii were rarely found in pre-War Palestine, the mention of “denarius” is a historical anachronism. He writes:

This inference is quite unreasonable: Jesus’s point is not whether denarii were common in Judea, or particularly in Jerusalem. His point is simple: the opponents had coins acknowledging Caesar’s authority. And we do possess denarii from pre-War Jerusalem:

Apart from this, as noticed earlier, if Mark was written in Rome or Alexandria where denarii were common, this argument wouldn’t work.

Zeichmann raises an additional, yet relatively minor, point: would a Galilean rabbi have known the taxation practices in Judea, since both provinces were separate before 44 CE? Since the Revolt of 6 CE, there was an active and quite known anti-taxation movement in Palestine.

If we are to go by the Markan account, it is precisely the fact that Jesus was a wise Galilean teacher that leads the antagonists to ask the question, as is evident from the text: “Teacher, we know that you are sincere and show deference to no one..”

These points lead Zeichmann to conclude that Fiscus Judaicus is the first tax that was levied by census and paid in denarii to the Caesar, i.e. to the Imperial Treasury. Since it was instituted on 29 Aug. 71 CE, the text couldn’t have been written before this date.

To conclude, then, I don’t find his argument to be convincing enough: for some time — since reading Zeichmann’s paper — I had myself considered a date ca. 70-85 CE for Mark; but now, I don’t perceive strong reasons for it to be more plausible than other possible dates.

This is not to say that a late dating is improbable, though: the Gospel can still be contextualized in a late-first-century CE setting (cf. Marie-Becker 2011, Kimondo 2018, and Rosam 2004).